The justices struck down three other parts of the law:
-One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
-One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
-And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

And again, they strike down state laws that are already federal laws. We are all doomed.

lurkingdirk

2012-06-25, 18:41

States Rights. Looks like another Civil War is on the horizon. :ak47:

:rofl2:

Oh...you're serious?

:rofl2:

Straight Shooter

2012-06-25, 19:26

:rofl2:

Oh...you're serious?

:rofl2:

The South will rise again......they say

lurkingdirk

2012-06-25, 19:32

The South will rise again......they say

I'm willing to bet he also refers to it as the war of Northern aggression.

:facepalm:

Justaman

2012-06-25, 21:13

States Rights. Looks like another Civil War is on the horizon. :ak47:

Strom Thurmond is dead. There won't be another Civil War. At least not over states rights, that's for sure. Jan Brewer is crowing about the decision for God's sake! :facepalm:

Will E Worm

2012-06-26, 00:03

And again, they strike down state laws that are already federal laws. We are all doomed.

To war.

:rofl2:

Oh...you're serious?

:rofl2:

:facepalm:

The South will rise again......they say

One day.

The war of Northern aggression was bad enough.

Strom Thurmond is dead. There won't be another Civil War. At least not over states rights, that's for sure. Jan Brewer is crowing about the decision for God's sake! :facepalm:

It will be over State's Rights and other things. ;)

Has nothing to do with Thurmond.

CptHa

2012-06-26, 02:03

And again, they strike down state laws that are already federal laws. We are all doomed.

If you read the Constitution you'd know that those were struck down because immigration is explicitly stated (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) as the federal government's domain. This means the states have no legal right to implement such laws, whether they are enforced or not.

PlumpRump

2012-06-26, 14:47

If you read the Constitution you'd know that those were struck down because immigration is explicitly stated (http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec8.html) as the federal government's domain. This means the states have no legal right to implement such laws, whether they are enforced or not.

Right, but the state law is not superseding the federal law, its simply mirroring it. And if the federal government is neglecting to enforce the law, I disagree with the conclusion that the state should have no right to do so. If the federal government is going to outright refuse to enforce a federal law and disallows the states from the same, I consider that to be the federal government holding a state hostage and intentionally tying its hands, exerting a disproportionate amount of power over the state, which I view as unconstitutional.

CptHa

2012-06-27, 00:51

It doesn't matter. It's the federal government's domain, the state can not enact laws like that. If you don't like it, there's a process to amend the Constitution.

darkwarrior3007

2012-06-27, 01:18

It will be over State's Rights and other things. ;)

Has nothing to do with Thurmond.

Hold up, stop the press, wait just one minute! Just what exactly are these other things?:surprise:

PlumpRump

2012-06-27, 17:27

It doesn't matter. It's the federal government's domain, the state can not enact laws like that. If you don't like it, there's a process to amend the Constitution.

That's debatable, and a very broad interpretation of Article 1, Section 8. "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" is an extremely vaguely defined "power," and simply because the SCOTUS is participating in judicial activism doesn't mean they've made the correct ruling. I could just as easily point to the 10th amendment and make the assertion that the states do indeed have a right to make such laws based on the fact that the illegal immigrants are participating in intrastate commerce within the state and therefore jurisdiction falls under the purview and powers of said state due to the lack of inclusion of intrastate commerce in the enumerated powers of Congress. Broad interpretation works both ways.

I still believe that the Federal Government's outright refusal to enforce the law for politically strategical purposes, while simultaneously disallowing the state to do so is an overreach (in its absence) by the Federal Government, and highly restrictive of state's rights, which I believe to be unconstitutional, as well as an impeachable offense.

If the Federal Government were doing its job, the states wouldn't have to take on the role of enforcing federal laws. But if the Federal Government won't enforce the law, who should? Why even have an immigration standard if no one who is "allowed" to enforce it will, and no one who wants to enforce it is "allowed?" Silly logic.

Will E Worm

2012-06-28, 01:10

It doesn't matter. It's the federal government's domain, the state can not enact laws like that. If you don't like it, there's a process to amend the Constitution.

State's Rights. ;)

Operation Wetback Link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback)
They don't know how to deport illegals like they used to.

Hold up, stop the press, wait just one minute! Just what exactly are these other things?:surprise:

Many reasons.

A culture clash, look at the Treyvon case, taxes, unemployment, health care, illegal immigration,
unconstitutional laws and wars, and so on and so forth.

CptHa

2012-06-28, 05:07

That's debatable, and a very broad interpretation of Article 1, Section 8. "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" is an extremely vaguely defined "power," and simply because the SCOTUS is participating in judicial activism doesn't mean they've made the correct ruling. I could just as easily point to the 10th amendment and make the assertion that the states do indeed have a right to make such laws based on the fact that the illegal immigrants are participating in intrastate commerce within the state and therefore jurisdiction falls under the purview and powers of said state due to the lack of inclusion of intrastate commerce in the enumerated powers of Congress. Broad interpretation works both ways.

I still believe that the Federal Government's outright refusal to enforce the law for politically strategical purposes, while simultaneously disallowing the state to do so is an overreach (in its absence) by the Federal Government, and highly restrictive of state's rights, which I believe to be unconstitutional, as well as an impeachable offense.

If the Federal Government were doing its job, the states wouldn't have to take on the role of enforcing federal laws. But if the Federal Government won't enforce the law, who should? Why even have an immigration standard if no one who is "allowed" to enforce it will, and no one who wants to enforce it is "allowed?" Silly logic.
Just because the Federal Government won't enforce its own laws is irrelevant to this argument. As I stated, states have no right to make laws that are the duty of the Federal Government. End. Period. Dot. That power is given to Congress, therefore Congress can do as much or as little regulation on immigration they wish. The states have no right in this issue to pass their own laws. Here's the 10th amendment verbatim (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment):

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Now, tell me what part of immigration is delegated to the states seeing as how the Constitution specifically gives that right to Congress.

PlumpRump

2012-06-28, 19:56

Just because the Federal Government won't enforce its own laws is irrelevant to this argument. As I stated, states have no right to make laws that are the duty of the Federal Government. End. Period. Dot. That power is given to Congress, therefore Congress can do as much or as little regulation on immigration they wish. The states have no right in this issue to pass their own laws. Here's the 10th amendment verbatim (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/tenth_amendment):

Now, tell me what part of immigration is delegated to the states seeing as how the Constitution specifically gives that right to Congress.

I see your point, I do. But you're basing your argument, as I said before, on the broad interpretation of Sec. 1 Art. 8 "To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization" as reading that the federal government has total domain over immigration. Naturalization (the granting of citizenship) and immigration (the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country) do not always go hand in hand and are, definitionally, not one and the same. Therefore I see immigration as not specifically a power delegated to the United States, and the 10th Amendment thus applies to, at the very least, intrastate actions (not governable by Congress) of immigrants and stands as a firm enough base to make this a state issue. As well, I think the fact that the President's refusal to enforce the federal law is extremely relevant, as well as unconstitutional, in the way that Article 2, Section 3 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii#section3) of the US Constitution definitively states that the President "shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed," which the President has very publicly stated he will not do in this case.

The President's unconstitutional inaction has forced the state's hand. For AZ sit idly by and do nothing is a disservice by the state to its legal citizens, simple as that.